A person aggrieved by an entry in a record of rights must institute a civil suit for a declaration of their right, as provided under Section 46 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.

S. S. Sidhu, I.A.S.—A single order will suffice to dispose of all the above revision petitions, which have been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh through Conservator of Forests, Shimla Circle, Shimla, under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 for quashing the entries recorded by the Revenue Officers in the Jamabandi for the years 1958-59, since the issue and law point involved in all the cases are the same.

2. The brief facts giving rise to these revision petitions are that various pieces of land, situated in Mauza Kaithli, Pargana Bagri Kalan, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 were vested in the erstwhile State of PEPSU by different mutations on the strength of Notification No. 40 dated 4-1-1953 issued by the then Secretary to the Government of Punjab under section 29 of Patiala Forest Act, 1999 (Samvat), declaring the provisions of Chapter 1 of the said Act applicable to the lands ibid, vesting the ownership in favour of “Jungle Doem Raikot" meaning thereby that the PEPSU State was the owner of the land, in question It has been alleged by the petitioner that the Revenue authorities while preparing the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, wrongly showed the respondents in the above revision petitions as tenants without any basis/authority and against the entries of the mutations vide which the land in question had vested in the erstwhile State of PEPSU. It has also been mentioned by the petitioner that the illegal entries in favour of the respondents have come to the stay in the revenue record and on the strength of these entries, the concerned Revenue Officers have wrongly shown the respondents as non-occupancy tenants in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 and the rent was shown as "Basharhe Malkan". Another ground taken in the petitions is that no rent whatsoever was ever paid by the respondents to the Forest Department or the concerned State Government. The State of PEPSU was merged with the Punjab State and later on, the area where the land, in question, situated, merged with Himachal Pradesh on the re-organisation of the composite State of Punjab On coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the Halqa Patwari made entries regarding transfer of ownership in the name of the respondents and the Assistant Collector, II Grade, also attested the mutations The petitioner has stated that the Assistant Collector, II Grade transferred the ownership without any authority. The petitioner has stated that the matter regarding existing of wrong entries in the revenue record came to the notice of the Forest Department on 29-10-1986 when a notice was received from the Land Reforms Officer, Kandaghat, in the office of the Range Officer, Tara Devi, asking the respondents to deposit certain amounts as compensation, extinguishing the rights of the landowner i.e. the State of Himachal Pradesh The petitioner stated that the land, in question, is in physical possession of the State of Himachal Pradesh through the Forest Department and the Department is maintaining the old plantations and planting new saplings year after year without any obstruction from anybody including the respondents Their prayer is that the entries in the revenue record are only paper entries incorporated by the Revenue authorities due to ignorance or connivance and no importance be attached to these entries. Since the cases regarding conferring of proprietary rights were still pending before the Land Reforms Officer, stay had been granted till the decision of the present revision petitions.

3. We have gone through the record of the case very carefully and have also given due consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri Ravinder Sharma, District Attorney, who appeared on behalf of the State and Shri V. K. Sharma, Advocate, who represented the respondents The learned District Attorney (Revenue) reiterated the pleas, which have been taken in the grounds of revis